All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant

A shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of each of the facts charged in this case against Defendant A by misunderstanding the facts for the following reasons, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

1) There is no evidence that the amount paid by the G Corporation (hereinafter “G”) to each design and advisory cost indicated in the facts charged is false or excessive to J Limited Corporation (hereinafter “J”) and K Limited Corporation (hereinafter “K”); hereinafter “J and K”) (hereinafter “K”). There is no evidence that the money paid to each design and advisory cost stated in the facts charged is included in the charges.

Therefore, the crime of occupational breach of trust is not established where the defendant A obtained property benefits from the above North Korean border company and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount in G with the payment of the money stated in the facts charged to the North Korean border company.

B) Defendant A does not have any fact that he was involved in the withdrawal of funds and the payment of advisory fees. The evidence that Defendant A appeared to have participated in the investigation conducted by the prosecution of Defendant B. However, Defendant B’s statement is that Defendant B made a false statement in collusion with L and it is not admissible or credibility, and Defendant B’s statement is not admissible, and it is not inconsistent with each other in the investigation agency and court, and L’s statement is a person who made a false statement in return for Defendant B, and it is not evidence of guilt against the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. (2) Defendant A violated the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “F”) and Defendant A did not possess or retain all materials related to G at the time of the investigation conducted by the prosecution of Defendant B, and thus, it is impossible to submit it to the bankruptcy trustee, and Defendant B’s statement is limited to L’s submission of materials and explanation and demand.